Guns, Germs and Steel

The definitive Audible purchase

I was defeteated by the text version of this listen despite finding the topic interesting and generally being happy to stick with challenging reads. I don't know whether it was Diamond's prose style or the relatively slow start but for whatever reason I just couldn't get past the first 50 pages. The audible version though was an entirely different proposition. It's well narrated; I stuck with early sections that did a good job of scene setting but gave me problems in print and by the end I was so fascinated by the combination of detailed research and sweeping vision that I listened to it again. Can't recommend this too highly for fans of non-fiction

Really interesting take on World history

Jared Diamond approaches World History in a refreshing and entirely original way in this work. Rather than looking simply at what happened or even why it happened, he goes right back to first principles to examine why the circumstances arose that led to peoples of one part of the World essentially dominating the others. I think the macro view is a little simplistic but it is undeniably compelling and a strong counter-argument to more reductionist arguments of racial superiority or cultural differences.

I listen to a lot of history books on Audible and few, if any, have brought to light as many new realisations about the World. Not so much telling me things I didn't already know but highlighting the importance of facts that I was already aware of.

It has to be said that it is not a perfect work and Jared Diamond's ego does get in the way somewhat. He simply can't resist interposing his personal experience and special insights into the narrative rather than simply let the story stand on it's own. A certain number of these personal anecdotes would be fine but it feels at times like he is desperate for the reader/listener to acknowledge just how special and clever his insights are and how uniquely positioned he is to draw them.

Overall a really interesting and engaging listen but I can see how the writer's style might really grate with some.

Controversial and Judgemental

I really enjoyed this audiobook, my wife, who studied anthropology did not! As with so many debates, the lack of accessible specialist literature on a subject of widespread interest leads to other specialisms filling the void, from an anthropologists view this happened here.



The mashing of the huge historical period and the geographical themes is understandable here, Diamond is a Geographer, and sees life in those terms, much as Acemoglu and Robinson in Why Nations Fail, examine life as economists. Obviously, real life is more complicated, but by simplifying the discussions and applying a consistent paradigm,I felt I understood more about development than before.



Yes, I can see why Survival International don't like some of Diamond's narrative, there is certainly less sympathy for native peoples, but so what? If you download this you'll possibly move on to others of this type.



If anthropologists would suggest something to broaden my views I would be happy to access it, otherwise my reading list includes: Ian Morris, Niall Ferguson, Charles C. Mann, and David Landes!

A scientist makes history dull with lists

This is considered a classic and a milestone for some reason, and it's not entirely without merit but overall is a very dull read and a wasted opportunity.

Whether or not you agree with the politics of Diamond's argument - that it was the environmental conditions in which early populations of humans found themselves that dictated whether they would go on to become 'advanced modern societies' or remain hunter gatherers (I think the argument is fairly coherent and compelling but some have a real problem with it) the problem I have with the book is not its argument but its very dull and unengaging articulation of this argument.

The book is dull and dry, written without a shred of charisma. It reads like a university thesis stretched out to 80+ thousand words and feels like it was written for an academic, not a popular audience.

The argument Diamond makes is actually quite simple and could be simply proved in about 20,000 words, but for some reason Diamond feels the need to give us chapters and chapters of filler, cataloguing every plant domesticated in every setting, and then every animal found naturally and then domesticated in each setting, and then every disease that arose in each setting, and then every population migration that occurred and at what time, and what feels like details of every language ever to involve and how they are all inter-related - when actually one or two examples of each would have been enough to prove the point.

The book therefore reads like a lists of lists in many places - lists of continents, languages, societies, plants, diseases, animals, and other things, all presented and read out without a shred of personality to be found either in the text itself or in the narrator's performance, which is also dull and sounds like a school information video not a popular science narration.
To make matters worse, these lists often seem entirely unconnected to the central argument of the book - for example a huge section on the history of plant domestication (of what seems like every conceivable plant in every continent) is provided without it being clear, until the very end of the chapter, how this links to the argument about the environment with the most favourable conditions leading to the domestication of most plants.

The book finally gets to the simple, and to me it seems, sensible, point that the naturally occurring features (indigenous plant and animal species, geography, climate, latitude, idea diffusion, etc) of a region were instrumental in determining how quickly the local humans were able to develop agriculture, which then allowed them to go on to dominate in cultural and imperial terms. But while this seems obviously true for ancient societies, Diamond says very little about the reasons why different parts of the world that did develop agriculture at similar times then went on to develop into 'modern' societies at different rates, or why some were more competitive than others. i.e. why did China stagnate for so long? Why didn't Islamic culture conquer the new world instead of Christian culture? What gave Europe the advantage? He speculates on some of these points but seems content to leave it at that.

The language evolution section is particularly dull, given that it relies on discussing huge numbers of individual languages which are all related to each other, none of which you will have ever heard of before, all of which have strange names, and all of which will be repeated in quick succession and the relationships between them described, without any realisation that the reader, almost certainly having no interest in linguistic nomenclature per se, will not keep up or care about why any of this matters.

Diamond makes a big thing of how the practice of history could learn from the approach taken in the sciences, but fatally undermines his own argument by writing a science history in a much duller and less engaging way that a good popular historian would have done. Diamond really should have teamed up with a historian and a good, engaging writer, to produce this book as an engaging popular history instead of attempting it alone and writing it like a scientist's PhD thesis.

It is also probably one of the most humourless books I have ever read. It's rare to read a book which really lacks a trace of wit or humour throughout - any sort of wry remarks or hints at the personality of the author - but Diamond manages it, giving no hint of himself and apparently deliberately avoiding anything lighthearted or endearing. Even anecdotes about the typewriter keyboard and the unexpected purposes to which human inventions were put -
which have the potential to engage, and build some common ground behind reader and author - are treated in a completely lifeless, factual way when they could have been written to entertain.

Which I suppose is my key criticism of the book. Diamond may be a good scientist but he's not a good popular writer, and while he seems to have a compelling thesis it's crying out to be communicated in a better, more coherent and more engaging way. I - and I think many others - read popular science or history mainly to be informed and to learn, yes, but also crucially to be entertained - and if you're after entertainment, this aint it.

An excellent work slightly spoilt

As a scientist myself I have always like Jarad Diamond as he opens up areas I have an non-professional interests. In this work Diamond deals this the differences between the various levels of development between various groups of peoples. Why is European/Asian culture so dominate? Diamond lays out his evidence and arguments well and does not fall into to the trap of push one reason for our current situation over another. However, the audio book is let down with poor narration with almost no inflection in his voice, which made it unpleasant and dry to listen to.

A Magnum Opus - in every sense.

This is a "magnum opus" in all senses of the phrase, and deserved winner of the Pulitzer Prize. The question at the centre of the book is one asked by a New Guinea tribesman "How did your culture and peoples come to dominate us?", and the book opens with the defeat of several thousand Mayan warriors and their God-King, by a few hundred Spanish Conquistadors, armed with guns. Diamond rightly rejects the 19th Century explanation that white Europeans are innately superior, citing examples of the often greater inventiveness, adaptability and intelligence of "aboriginal" peoples. Dismissed too are notions of superior culture (e.g. Niall Fergason's 6 "killer apps" in his book "Civilisation"). Diamond instead looks to geography, and natural history for explanations. We conquered other continents, because we carried more lethal diseases (germs), and had better technology (guns & steel). This in turn was because the continent of Eurasia has many more animals and plants that could be domesticated, carried more diseases (to which we developed immunity) and that both of these, along with cultural advances, spread more easily East-West along similar temperate zones, leading to our earlier abandonment of hunter-gatherer lifestyles, in favour of farming, specialisation and technological advancement. Though the book paints a broad brush history, it delves very specifically into details of the development and clashes among numerous world cultures, and the evidence left to us today in language, technology, lifestyle, diseases and diet. Sometimes, the level of detail he goes into becomes almost overwhelming. The narration is very clear and concise, but the intonation is sometimes flat, and I found myself drifting off at times. It would have been great if the author had narrated it himself. In summary, this is a major and important work, but a long and sometimes difficult book. It is hard, but well worth the effort, if you, like me, seek to understand how and why we got here.

Fascinating insights into long-term history

What did you like most about Guns, Germs and Steel?

The ambition of this book is immense, crisscrossing the globe, and human societies throughout history and prehistory. It's one of those rare mind expanding books that changes the way you look at the world.

Interesting in parts, too repetitive, some bias

What disappointed you about Guns, Germs and Steel?

I felt like the author started off by a) telling me what he thought I believed (that 'westeners' were more intelligent than non westerners) and b) then telling me how I was wrong. I didn't actually believe the thing that I felt the author was accusing me of so that was a bad start. The book was extremely repetitive. It was very much, tell them what you are going to tell them x10, tell them x10, tell them what you just told them x 10. There was no need for all the repetition. I got it the 1st, 2nd and 3rd time. Some of the analyisis seemed quite flawed when compared with other books like Chip Walters' Last Ape Standing, and Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. Overall some interesting snippets of information within spoiled by a biased writer who writes as if his readrer has the memory retention of a goldfish. Disappointing!

Has Guns, Germs and Steel put you off other books in this genre?

No

How could the performance have been better?

Performance was OK

If you could play editor, what scene or scenes would you have cut from Guns, Germs and Steel?

Much of the repetition

fascinating

great book with a wide ranging and thorough argument. I enjoyed the narrator a lot too.

Great book, somnambulist narration

A really great shame that this is given the narrative momentum of a shopping list by the narrator. It’s a monotonous burble, ideal for falling asleep.